This was somewhat addressed elsewhere - but if you want the real reason that the mural is maintained (and it has been challenged) it's that it's fundamentally not religious in nature. The mural itself is a mural of lawgivers - it's a representation of law and not an overt religious display. It also has immense historical significance.
This banner is fundamentally religious, it's primarily religious, and it has little historical or cultural significance.
Hence, violation and removal.
Well lets just bring back slavery then. That was acceptable for a third of our nation's history.
The basic problem is that
-> Government taxes individuals to establish a "religion-free" platform in school.
-> Growth of public schools and usurpation of money from other schools constitutes state encroachment on the lives of people.
-> Education takes the dominant amount of time away from human beings being educated. Therefore the "religion-free" platform is essentially an establishment of a religious perspective.
-> That taxation takes away from the exercise of religions that dictate education along religious values.
The result is an establishment of a religious viewpoint -- the "religion-free" viewpoint.
Kindly remove your red herring, it's stinking
the government shouldn't be involved with the influence of religion on government.
Well, stop arguing that since we've always done it, it must be ok.
Apparently you've never heard of his little thing called "precedent." No, I don't think I'll stop arguing that. It's far stronger than anything I've seen in this thread ...
And I showed instances where the "precedent" didn't matter.
The government shouldn't be involved with how religion influences government. I believe I agree.I agree with the decision of the court.
If we go by what the constitution says( which was apparently founded by christian forefathers) then the government shouldn't be involved with the influence of religion on government.
Apparently you've never heard of his little thing called "precedent." No, I don't think I'll stop arguing that. It's far stronger than anything I've seen in this thread ...
The government shouldn't be involved with how religion influences government. I believe I agree.
Schoolchildren are not the government's to demand the absence of religious sentiment in the public sphere for seven hours a day.
Then that's government suppression of religious speech on the part of private individuals forced to spend their lives in the school.The school, however, is within the sphere of the government. The scroll was hanging on the wall of a school with the official sanction of the school.
Then that's government suppression of religious speech on the part of private individuals forced to spend their lives in the school.
The nondenominational prayer was submitted by a private group. It came from the private group. Does it need citation to remain?
Remove the first and last line.
Now what?
Do you even know which human being put this mural up? Do you have any reason to believe they were acting as a representative of the US government?
Really. You interviewed him? You know the origin of the painting & prayer?
AlexBP said:Public schools are generally run by local governments, and the First Amendment of the Constitution acts to restrict only Congress, not local governments.
My, my. Touched a nerve, did we?
It'll be all right, honest. Nobody ever dropped dead from being exposed to Christianity---it's not like high doses of radiation, or the Maralinga strain of Ebola Zaire.
So if they added more murals in RI?
Fine. There's a mural including Moses inside chambers, and a relief on the doors.
All people do. The Constitution does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The SC has curtailed that free exercise, but it's written into the Constitution.
The absence of religious speech is equally a statement about religious speech.
Its absence in school is the problem. In fact to me it constitutes a conscience problem as to why I'm funding the state suppression of religious speech......
Secularization is suppression, just as surely as dictation of a religion.
Since lots of people here seem to think this is a matter of freedom of speech, I wonder if anybody would defend the banner if it was satanic.
Apparently it has been acceptable for 99.9% of our Nation's history. You know, all that time we were a great Nation, instead of a pitiful pool of red ink?
And all those crosses in Arlington National Cemetary.....simply disgraceful. Have to replace them all with hammers and sickles, I guess.
Read the banner again. Do you see any reference---any at all, to Christ or Christianity?
What it does have is an address to "Our Heavenly Father", but for all you know, the heavenly father in question might be Zeus, or Odin, or Anubis; the banner istself does not specify which deity it's addressing.
All are financial hardships. Where's your argument that the high cost should be mitigated by the government?They're not forced into the school. They can apply for a Charter/Private school and, ultimately, should they not be able to afford that there's home schooling as an option.
You're making my point that the removal of religion from school combined with charging people for it is oppressive against free exercise of religion.No - it needs to be not on publicly owned property.
No less nonsensical than numerous other statements of personal dedication.Well, then it doesn't make all that much sense (since most of it is "help us" or similar); however, if you retitled it "School motto", took out the top and bottom, and then reworded it somewhat so it wasn't non-nonsensical in the context, and yeah, that's ok.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?